Which Bible version shall I use

[Lifelike]

the king james version, with a in depth study of the greek and hebrew words through the strongs concordance. Les Garrett is an authority on the subject and his book "which bible can we trust" is a great book and extensively covers the topic from a solid, balanced well researched point of veiw rather thatn some "conspiracy conspiracy!" type perspectives. god is well able to preserve his word and he has done so over thousands of years. i really recommend getting the book to any serious bible reader

[Slepsog4]

Hey LIfe,

I have never heard of Les Garrett. What makes him an expert? How do you measure how balanced his approach is? What is his conclusion?

[KayCee]

Miktre

Many thanks for your superb in-depth analyses re the various versions of the Bible. You have rendered to me and numerous others, I am sure, a great service by presenting this extensive information that otherwise would not be available because of our lack of academic resources as well as our limited knowlege of the subject matter.

Again, thank you for the very thorough, painstaking effort that you have undertaken on our behalf. You are indeed an inspiration to all of us.

Best Wishes - K

[Slepsog4]

I am no fan of the NIV but who currently owns the copyright has nothing to do with the work done on the translation 30 years ago. It just goes to show that Murdock is greedy.

[jgrig2]

There are good reasons why over 99% of persons who have studied greek do not use the KJV only or the TR. If you care about the Bible then do what it says and stop bringing up topics noone cares about and be silent use ur kjv and submit to the elders at ur church and do ur job and live our ur christian life in quiet devotion like we all do. No english translation (nor french or german or chinese or any language) is perfect because God has choosen not to preserve the original autographs and the only way we can Know what he has revealed is through textual criticism and compare and translate these texts into our language.

[imoss]

could all of the posters/debaters please just answer which version they choose. I'm curious after reading all of the discrediting of various translations... Personally early in my walk i choose the niv as it was easy for me to read. Later i noticed scriptural differences that were important enough for me to put it down. found i wasnt reading my kjv like i should have been as it isnt as easily understood and so i purchased a nkjv & quite like it & read it alot. so... each person please just list the version of your choice cause i'm curious based on your debating styles what you prefer. or perhaps we should have NO Bible cause they've all been translated and are in err.... hmmmm.

[BLC]

Originally Posted by imoss

could all of the posters/debaters please just answer which version they choose. I'm curious after reading all of the discrediting of various translations... Personally early in my walk i choose the niv as it was easy for me to read. Later i noticed scriptural differences that were important enough for me to put it down. found i wasnt reading my kjv like i should have been as it isnt as easily understood and so i purchased a nkjv & quite like it & read it alot. so... each person please just list the version of your choice cause i'm curious based on your debating styles what you prefer. or perhaps we should have NO Bible cause they've all been translated and are in err.... hmmmm.

Three good ones: Get all three if you can.

1. Schofield Bible /KJV - this has some excellent footnotes and cross references
2. NIV - this will help you understand some of the difficult text of the KJV
3. Amplified - will give some background in the original language and explain in greater depth some passages.

Here is good source and reference site that will help explain word for word. If you learn how to use this site it can be very helpful. http://www.blueletterbible.org/

[Buddee]

I wonder about all the wonderfull brothers and sisters in Christ that can't read or speak ANY form of English.

What a pity that "only the King James Bible (KJV) is in an uncorrupted state."

Whatever are they to do?

[Thaddaeus]

Originally Posted by Buddee

I wonder about all the wonderfull brothers and sisters in Christ that can't read or speak ANY form of English.

What a pity that "only the King James Bible (KJV) is in an uncorrupted state."

Whatever are they to do?

dude where is this from ?? there are other translation for those that don't speak english for example spanish bible also has two transaltions 1913 and 1926(Manuscripts agree with the KJB (I THINK the dates are right) )
we probably should have made clear that we were addressing the English translations.

Originally Posted by imoss

could all of the posters/debaters please just answer which version they choose. I'm curious after reading all of the discrediting of various translations... Personally early in my walk i choose the niv as it was easy for me to read. Later i noticed scriptural differences that were important enough for me to put it down. found i wasnt reading my kjv like i should have been as it isnt as easily understood and so i purchased a nkjv & quite like it & read it alot. so... each person please just list the version of your choice cause i'm curious based on your debating styles what you prefer. or perhaps we should have NO Bible cause they've all been translated and are in err.... hmmmm.

Greetings,

Most modern bibles including the NIV are based on and taken from the same manuscripts as the KJV, they are merely derivatives of the KJV, so the debate between the differences between the KJV and NIV is minor issue as they both come from the same source manuscripts.

I would say that it really is only possible to get the correct reading from the Bible if you translate from the original Koine Greek and Hebrew, tracing the transliterations through Latin, it is a long process, sometimes it might take me hours to get a close reading on just one key word and st the same time I will look at several translations comparing what other translators have stated and then try to get an understanding directly through the spirit, then go through the entire process again, and consider and linguistic alternatives or historical evidence as a background or overlay. The main Bible versions I use are, and I reccommend as a beginning;

- The Companion Bible - King James Version. E.W Bullinger Notes. (KJV to be read with Strong's Concordance)

- The Greek Septuagint (The oldest OT and the most accurate)

- James Moffatt Translation (Brilliant modern english translation from 1926)

- Rotherham's Emphasized Bible (literal word by word translation with full emphasis given to original languages)

- Young's Literal Translation (to be read with 'Young's Analytical Concordance')

- Ferrar Fenton Holy Bible (Important, Spirit filled individual translation)

- Geneva Bible (essential classic)

- New American Standard Bible

- New International Version

- Emphatic Diaglott

[Stephanie]

Originally Posted by Cup-of-Ruin

No He did not, and I have already addressed this in another thread, the KJV has been deliberately corrupted and Luke 17:20-21 where you have recieved your false doctrine from, is a mistranslation, not just the word 'within' which is in fact 'among' but the whole passage has been tampered with to spread false doctrine, now I have explained this already on a KJV thread, and you posted on that thread and you should have corrected that in your mind and changed your doctrine. The Kingdom of God DOES NOT EXIST IN YOUR HEART!

It's really not okay to say that to someone.

From the original post made, show that KJV is the most trust worthy translation in our english language we have. Thank you Jesus for picking king james to get Your Word to the english speaking people.

All I saw were a lot of grasping at straws. While we are at it, why don't we go destroy all the Celtic crosses in the world as being Satanic. That little circle in the middle of the cross is supposed to represent the celtic sun god. The church added it to the Christian symbol of the cross to trick pagans into coming to church. Oh, and let's also get rid of half our holidays because they were pagan to begin with, Easter even because we all know the easter bunny and the eggs represent fertility rituals done by the pagans.

SO what, the trinity is a design that when broken apart vaguely looks like 3 sixes. People will see "signs" in anything and everything. God gave us the Holy Spirit so that we might always know the truth. The Holy Spirit doesn't catch me on fire and punch my kidneys whenever I pick up my NIV bible, nor does it slap me silly when I pick up a KJV. I honestly think that when we go to heaven, God is going to see if we did our best to learn His word, if we followed the message of love he gave us, and if we repented from our sins. I don't think he's going to pick up our Bible, call it trash, and then push the button that sends us to eternal hell.

Get a Bible you are comfortable with. Pray to God to help you make that choice, and then use the Holy Spirit to discern what is written.

[Graybeard]

Funny, just a few nights ago a trusted (because everything that comes out this mans mouth he backs up with scripture) man on TBN was answering a question posed to him through an email, question being asked was "what Bible translation should we use?"
His answer made sense to me, Don't trust any Bible that has being translated by one man (apparently there are quite a few out there)
Check to see where the translation comes from ie: KJV - NIV - NKJV and many more where agreed upon by many scholars who have endeavored to translate as close to as possible according to modern language.
The emphasis being on when a few translate there is a danger of their own belief influencing their translation
Many bible scholars debate in depth and reach a consensus what to and what not to include.

[buckeyegirl700]

I have been a Christian for a little over a year. I have read the NLT, NIV, and the message. The reason I chose these versions was because I could not understand the King James Version. I am confused about which version to read.

[Ryan1976]

The church added it to the Christian symbol of the cross to trick pagans into coming to church. Oh, and let's also get rid of half our holidays because they were pagan to begin with, Easter even because we all know the easter bunny and the eggs represent fertility rituals done by the pagans.

This is off topic but just want to correct some popular misunderstanding in regards to Easter and all these so-called "pagan" influences.

Easter is named after the month that according to the Celts (i think it's the Celts) calendar Pascha always fell on. Thursday is named after Thor, doesn't mean that everyone that does what they do on any given Thursday is paying tribute or honoring Thor. Pascha is Greek for, ayep, Passover. In fact, the Orthodox still celebrate "Easter", but we call it "Pascha". If you study the various calendars that came into vogue in the West/East you'll see that Easter just wound up getting gobbled up by Rome and the Western world (protestants). Easter and Pascha are the same thing.

In regards to the eggs and bunnies, they're common symbols that if you ask anyone that might take a wild stab at what they mean, can understand they represent Spring-time type stuff that also relates to the meaning that rests within our celebration of Pascha (Easter).

I think the Easter Bunny is of Germanic origin. *shrug

Anyhoo, just throwing this out there because there's a whole lot of revisionist histories out there used to drum up a notion that the early Church was "compromised". That and it sells books.

God bless

[MahogonySnail]

Ryan the pagans celebrate "Easter" (Ostara) who was or is a Pagan Saxon Goddess of fertility and springtime

[Ryan1976]

Originally Posted by MahogonySnail

Ryan the pagans celebrate "Easter" (Ostara) who was or is a Pagan Saxon Goddess of fertility and springtime

Yep. Wonder when they celebrated their "goddess". They honored her with a month. Called the month, Easter. Passover happened on this month. When they converted they celebrated Pascha on Easter. They didn't ditch the month which was named after her. If Easter fell on a Thursday according to the Gregorian calendar and we converted to Christianity we might call Pascha, Thursday once we ditched the Calendar for the Julian one. Doesn't mean that we are honoring Thor or simply replacing Thor for the Resurrection. Just means that Easter fell on, according to our calendar, Thursday (hypothetically speaking).

I see that I didn't even mentioned that they named the month after her. Celtic calendar, long gone. I was on my way to Vespers so it was a rush job.

Dunno. Doesn't matter to me much. We celebrate Pascha. "Easter" is a Roman Catholic/Protestant thing.

[Buddee]

"Thinking you have the right translation is no substitute for reading and memorizing it. You have to make it a part of you. You have to live it out in your world. The sooner we stop arguing about translations and begin reading one of them, I think the better off we're going to be. Now, we'll never really know what manuscripts are the best until we get to heaven."

"Regardless of what pamphlets you get, regardless of what booklets you read, the fact of the matter is--it's all a matter of faith. So exercise that faith. Be charitable to those who disagree with you--but by all means, read the Word, internalize it, memorize it. Let God's Word change your life! If it does, you know you have the right translation."


-Woodrow Kroll, Back to the Bible

[watchmen]

Use the KJV